grob@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Lori S. Grob) (02/08/88)
> I think that Eugene Miya's is important from two standpoints. > @ For the non-technician, the term "hypercube" has taken on a > generic meaning - like "kleenix" for a tissue. > @ For the technical folks, the term is a specific communications > topology. > Both distinctions serve a purpose. I would submit that the problems > of interest (to the newsgroup) are independent of the topology. > Locally, we're calling things like the CM and the T-series > "network connected." This avoids any committment to any theology. Perhaps this explains the low volume of correspondence in the hypercube newsgroup. Since it calls itself "hypercube" and claims to be "independent of topology" then its intended audience must be non-technicians. Technicians do not contribute because they perceive this to be a forum for discussing hypercube theology. For instance, Eugene Miya chooses to post his "Parallel Processing top ten" references (which includes references to hypercubes BTW) in comp.arch, rather than comp.hypercube. I am tired of wading through the notes in comp.arch to find those concerning parallel processing. (And I'm sure that those subscribers to comp.arch who are interrested in architectures are tired of the newsgroup being misused for this purpose.) I cannot understand why the hypercube newsgroup stubbornly clings to its (as pointed out by the moderator) inappropriate name. Susan Flynn flynn@acf2.nyu.edu I posted this for a friend please do not reply to me.
grob@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Lori S. Grob) (02/08/88)
(I am reposting this because I accidently deleted the 1st line, do not respond to me I am posting for a friend - Lori) Steve Stevenson (the Moderator) writes in comp.hypercube: > I think that Eugene Miya's is important from two standpoints. > @ For the non-technician, the term "hypercube" has taken on a > generic meaning - like "kleenix" for a tissue. > @ For the technical folks, the term is a specific communications > topology. > Both distinctions serve a purpose. I would submit that the problems > of interest (to the newsgroup) are independent of the topology. > Locally, we're calling things like the CM and the T-series > "network connected." This avoids any committment to any theology. Perhaps this explains the low volume of correspondence in the hypercube newsgroup. Since it calls itself "hypercube" and claims to be "independent of topology" then its intended audience must be non-technicians. Technicians do not contribute because they perceive this to be a forum for discussing hypercube theology. For instance, Eugene Miya chooses to post his "Parallel Processing top ten" references (which includes references to hypercubes BTW) in comp.arch, rather than comp.hypercube. I am tired of wading through the notes in comp.arch to find those concerning parallel processing. (And I'm sure that those subscribers to comp.arch who are interested in architectures are tired of the newsgroup being misused for this purpose.) I cannot understand why the hypercube newsgroup stubbornly clings to its (as pointed out by the moderator) inappropriate name. Susan Flynn flynn@acf2.nyu.edu
fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson) (02/08/88)
in article <22990@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, grob@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Lori S. Grob) says: > Steve Stevenson (the Moderator) writes in comp.hypercube: > >> I think that Eugene Miya's is important from two standpoints. >> .... > Perhaps this explains the low volume of correspondence in > .... > Susan Flynn Commentary- (sent to comp.hypercube). The name is a historical artifact. The original intent was to have a forum for machines which exist and to discuss the large problem of designing algorithms for real machines. Since this seems to be a continuing problem - the name I mean - I will check on the possibility of spawning a parallel parallel group (pun intended :-). Steve. --to the comp.arch folks: Please send a vote to me if you want a comp.parallel steve. -- Steve Stevenson fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (aka D. E. Stevenson), fpst@clemson.csnet Department of Computer Science, comp.hypercube Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell
eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya) (02/09/88)
I have no qualms reading comp.hypercube. I would not be averse to
seeing a comp.arch.parallel. But, this is spliting hairs (sometimes you
have to; I'm a reductionist after all ;-). I think a greater
problem are those who cross-reference comp.arch when they post to
comp.unix* because "it's part of `architecture'." There's lots of
interesting stuff in arch (enough tho' I'm reading 64-bit micros for the
4th time ;-).
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugeneroskos@csed-1.UUCP (Eric Roskos) (02/10/88)
In article <22983@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>, grob@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Lori S. Grob) writes: > I am tired of wading through the notes in comp.arch to find > those concerning parallel processing. (And I'm sure that those > subscribers to comp.arch who are interrested in architectures are > tired of the newsgroup being misused for this purpose.) > > I posted this for a friend please do not reply to me. (I wish that you had provided an address to reply to, so that people could disagree without starting another round of voting.) However, I disagree with your comments. comp.arch is about *all* architectural issues; and not even strictly "hardware" ones. Eugene's comments (which you criticized) are (in this group) always of this category. "Hypercubes" are only one kind of parallel architecture. -- Eric Roskos, IDA (...dgis!csed-1!roskos or csed-1!roskos@HC.DSPO.GOV) "Only through time time is conquered." -- Burnt Norton